This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GFDL/GPL issues
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:22:44 -0700
- Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues
- References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> <20100714172307.3687a9c4@shotwell>
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Is there a separate issue for libstdc++ doxygen? This situation is
> subtly different from the one outlined above: it is the application of
> a GPL'd tool over GPL'd sources, which the FSF + Red Hat legal have
> both told me for years results in GPL'd docs (and is clearly noted as
> such in the libstdc++ manual under Licensing.) I consider this sane,
> actually, and would be most unhappily surprised if the act of generating
> the HTML changed the license to GFDL.
As far as I know, everything you say above is correct; the documentation
you're generating is GPL'd. (IANAL, of course.)
In any case, that wasn't what the discussion with RMS was about. It was
about two things:
1. What license should "manuals" have?
The FSF wants them to be GFDL. However, RMS agreed that it's OK for
"cross-reference" information (as opposed to "manuals"), auto-generated
from source code, such as the documentation you're generating with
doxygen to be GPL'd. So, the procedure you're using is fine, not just
from a "is this legal" point of view, but also from an FSF policy point
of view.
2. Can we move GPL'd code into GFDL'd manuals, or copy text from GFDL's
manuals into GPL'd code, or auto-generated GFDL's manuals from GPL'd code?
This got complicated; see previous postings. But, it's not relevant to
your question, since you're not trying to do that.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713